A lot of the objections to the imposter idea state that "No one would want to live the life of a Carmelite nun for their entire lives just to work out a deception." This presumes the people behind the hoax hired some sort of spy or professional actress or con artist to be the fake sister Lucy.

I really don't think that's the case at all. I think they got some Carmelite nun, who had already become comfortable in that life and had decided to spend her life in such a manner, and asked her to be the faker, offering her some small rewards that would mean a lot to someone living in a convent, such as maybe better food, or freedom to do what she wanted, or simply exemption from duties she didn't like.

But I definitely don't think they hired someone from the world to be the imposter; I agree that seems implausible.

One theory about this entry is that it was a sort of mistake, that her day of death was listed as the day of her profession, or maybe the day of her profession into the order keeping this necrology. At first I thought that was absurd, but if you look in the left column, towards the top, #232 is listed as having died in 1962, so there does seem to be some practice of recording the dead nun by a different year from her actual death. Sr. Lucy doesn't seem to be the only one with an anomalous year given for her death.

On the whole I don't think it's that convincing, but it sure is a tantalizing piece of evidence.

Exactly when she died, I do not know, but the Sr. Lucy who claimed the consecration was done was NOT the same person.

.

No kidding. The whole point of the fake Sr. Lucy was so she could say a lot of things the real one would NEVER have said, including about the consecration of Russia, approving the fake "3rd secret", approving of JP2, the Novus Ordo, and so on. Basically they wanted to use someone who saw Our Lady to give a fake heavenly approval to the new church, and since the real one wouldn't do such a thing, they had to create an imposter.

2017 / 2018
https://fsspx.news/en/news/interview-bishop-bernard-fellay-fatima-centenary-church-crisis-18544

...Maike Hickson:What is, in your own view, the reason for the continued hesitancy of those people in the Church who could disclose, for the greater good, much more information? What do they still have to fear or to lose? Would such a disclosure not be an act of mercy toward the suffering Church in this deep crisis?

+Fellay: " I remember that Sr. Lucy, in an interview with a cardinal from India in the mid-1990s, was very afraid that the Pope would publish the Secret. She said, if she were to give the Holy Father advice, she would caution great prudence. If, for instance, the text contained something like the coming of the Antichrist or something else quite serious that would cast grave doubt on the authority of the Church, it could be a reason the same authorities are hesitant to publish this. I don’t pretend these examples are the case; I am simply speculating as to what some possible reasons might be for not releasing it. "

Never heard of this before, but just one more example of what the "Fake sister Lucy" would  spout. We all know that BVMary/ Sister Lucia wanted the secret opened by 1960 !!!

P.S.  Did the newSociety say that the Fatima Apparitions were private??? Oh yeah, just greatest miracle witnessed by 70,000 souls. !! ● • ● ○
Talk about the letter of the law that killeth. 
BTW we are the Church M ilitant!  Pray!